On the basis of a comparison of two Russian words used to describe “volunteering” it is shown how meanings might be used to justify social identity in a situation where the choice is made in the absence of a semantically significant difference. The research question can be formulated as follows: what kind of argument can substitute for substantive argumentation in a situation of forced choice between two semantically similar concepts. It is revealed that in a situation of refusing a meaningful explanation of the identification selection used procedural explanations that boil down to guidance (1) on the association of the preferred words with positive emotion, (2) clarity and (3) familiarity of use. The detected versions of the explanations informants preferences correspond to experimentally identified three components – affective, cognitive, and behavioral – social attitudes (attitude). The article concludes that branding a mass movement word that is perceived as foreign, was allowed to commemorate the victory over the memory of democratizing initiatives from abroad, but at the same time deprived of locallyminded activists to use to name the preferred word.